Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. J.P. Allen Co.

United States District Court, C.D. California

June 12, 2014

KEVIN WILSON
v.
J.P. ALLEN COMPANY, ET AL

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, Judge.

Proceedings: (In Chambers:) PLAINTIFF-IN-INTERVENTION'S MOTION TO INTERVENE (Dkt. 25, filed May 8, 2014)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of June 16, 2014, is vacated, and the matter is hereby taken under submission.

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 19, 2013, plaintiff Kevin Wilson ("Wilson") filed this negligence action against J.P. Allen Co. and Does 1-10, inclusive (collectively, "defendants"). Dkt. 18. The operative first amended complaint ("FAC") alleges that Wilson injured himself on J.P. Allen Co.'s airport hotel property in a fall resulting from "an unmarked drop in elevation in front of the entrance to the hotel." Id . ¶ IV. Under the scheduling order, the cutoff for amending pleadings and adding parties is currently June 27, 2014. Dkt. 23.

On May 8, 2014, proposed intervenor New Hampshire Insurance Co. ("NHIC") filed a motion to intervene. Dkt. 25. Neither plaintiff nor defendant has opposed the motion. After considering NHIC's motion, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 24(a) provides as follows:

Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

The Ninth Circuit has adopted a four-part test for applying Rule 24(a)(2):

(1) the applicant must timely move to intervene; (2) the applicant must have a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be situated such that the disposition of the action may impair or impede the party's ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant's interest must not be adequately represented by existing parties

Arakaki v. Cayetano , 324 F.3d 1078, 1083 (9th Cir. 2003). be demonstrated in order to provide a non-party with a right to intervene. League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson , 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997). The rule is construed broadly in favor of applicants for intervention. United States v. Oregon , 839 F.2d 635, 637 (9th Cir. 1988).

III. DISCUSSION

NHIC is JetBlue Airways Corp.'s worker's compensation policy issuer. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff Wilson was a flight attendant working for JetBlue Airways Corp. when he alleges that he was injured walking toward an airport-bound shuttle bus outside defendant's hotel. Id . NHIC avers that it has paid more than $59, 000 to Wilson, or on his behalf, in worker's compensation benefits as a result of this alleged injury. Id . NHIC asserts that under Cal. Lab. Code §§ 3850-56, its present and future worker's compensation payments give rise to liens ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.